The Trap: On her web site Judith Curry has a re-posting of an essay by Garth Paltridge that originally appeared in The Quadrant on the Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change. Paltridge discusses the major forecasting uncertainties of clouds and oceans, which have been known since the 1970s and have not been much improved upon. Herein lies the trap that the climate alarmists and science bureaucrats of the UN-IPCC has set for themselves. With each new Assessment Report (every six years or so) the Summary for Policymakers is asserting greater certainty in the work, even though the greater certainty is not appearing in the actual science. Many once distinguished national academies of science dutifully followed along. Now, there is no way these bureaucratic scientists can conveniently extract themselves from the trap and discuss the great uncertainty in climate science.

In a different post, Curry points out that in the scientific report (WG1) the scientific support for human emissions of CO2 dominating global warming/climate change has weakened from the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4-2007) to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5-2013). Curry states that the major issues are: 1) lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancy with climate model projections [as compared with observations]; 2) evidence of a decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2; 3) evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012; 4) increasing Antarctic sea ice extent; and 5) low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming.

Now doubt the climate establishment will ignore the uncertainties and continue to publicly attack those who assert the significant shortcomings. But, the real issue is how much longer will taxpayers tolerate politicians funding this scientific charade? See links under Problems in the Orthodoxy and Seeking a Common Ground.

**************

Climate Vortex: Dictionary examples of a vortex include a whirlpool, a cyclone, and a quagmire. In a slick promotional video, the President’s Chief Science Advisor, John Holdren, jumps into a quagmire. As illustrated in the Quote of the Week, Holdren blames the severe recent cold weather in the US on global warming. The claim is counterintuitive. One would think that in making such a video for the public, a presidential Science Advisor would carefully lay out the scientific arguments for making such an assertion. Holdren does not even try.

The scientific argument is very weak. A lessening of the temperature differences between the Arctic and the Mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere results in a weakening of the circumpolar vortex. As explained by Tim Ball, and others, linked in prior TWTWs, the circumpolar vortex is generally east to west, but may meander to a more north south pattern. These are called Rossby Waves, with the former called Zonal Waves and the latter called Meridional Waves (more closely following meridional lines of longitude). In his blog Resilient Earth, Doug Hoffman demolishes Holdren’s argument and appropriately suggests that the entire effort is similar to a beer commercial.

The credibility of science is at issue. Statements such as Holdren’s highlights reasons for public skepticism, and why government agencies and others promoting global warming find it necessary to hire communications experts and psychological experts to come up with explanations (excuses), why the public is becoming increasingly skeptical about their pronouncements. Do these people believe the public is endlessly gullible, or do they believe their own propaganda?

January 1977 was so cold in Washington that the Potomac River froze at the city. Some who attended the inauguration of President Carter walked across the Potomac to and from the ceremonies. What political speculation can be made from that event?

Send Money! British Prime Minister David Cameron claimed that the mild wet winter in England was being caused by global warming changing the circumpolar vortex. Initially, the Met Office, which failed to predict the wet weather, disavowed the assertion. Then some officials in the Met and other climate alarmist supported the claim. Myles Allen, head of the climate dynamics group at Oxford University, supported the claim and asserted that providing the Met Office or European Centre for Medium Range Forecasts with around £10 million a year would allow experts to model the weather against conditions that would have occurred if humans had not interfered with the climate.

According to a letter from the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 40 federal agencies or sub-agencies participating in climate change activities spent over $22 billion in 2013. SEPP does not know the extent of British expenditures, but has calculated that the US effort has cost over $185 Billion since 1993.

Now some recipients of lavish government spending are admitting that their models cannot separate the natural influences on climate from the human influences on climate – something that skeptics have been pointing out for years. See links under Changing Weather and Funding Issues.

**************

Turbine Life: As TWTW readers realize, SEPP does not think highly of wind power being an alternative to reliable fossil fuels for the generation of electricity. Among other issues, wind power is unreliable and needs expensive back-up, the costs of which usually falls on others. Turbine life, specifically gearbox life, remains an issue which is not publically addressed. Estimates are as low as 5 to 8 years. In 2007, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), under the Department of Energy, formed the Gearbox Reliability Collaborative.

A review of the documents online found discussion of engineering issues that influence gearbox life, but little on the expected life of the turbines. For some years, the Federal government has been paying wind farm developers cash money on the expected production of wind farms in lieu of the production tax credit that expired at the end of December. If the turbine life is shorter than the expected 20 years, then government has been overpaying wind farm developers. See links under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind.

**************

Department of Energy: The US Department of Energy (DOE) has produced a publication entitled “The Clean Energy Economy in Three Charts.” This is no more than a pure marketing piece for wind and solar power. Amid flashy graphs that show booming increases in installation of wind and solar capacity, the report states: “And according to the American Wind Energy Association, by 2012 there were well over 80,000 workers employed in wind-related jobs in the U.S.” This employment is insignificant when compared with the estimated employment increase of 2 million from increases in oil and gas production from smart drilling – which is not supported by taxpayers or Washington. The DOE report does not give the massive government expenditures – but mentions government “investments.” What is the rate of return on these “investment?”

Interestingly, the link to the DOE report did not work on Sunday, when this was being written. See links under Energy Issues – US.

**************

Additions and Corrections: Reader Clyde Spencer corrected a sentence in TWTW on oil from the Bakken formation. The oil contains such a high proportion of the more volatile components, which ignite at temperatures lower than regular crude.

**************

Number of the Week: $199,100. Last week the American Petroleum Institute (API) gave a briefing on the oil and gas industries emphasizing oil and gas shale revolution in the US. The API failed to mention that the revolution was brought about by independent producers, not the major integrated companies.

API President Jack Gerard emphasized that API will support those political candidates that support oil and natural gas. The politically influential newspaper, The Hill, made much of this and calculated that over 75% of the political action committee contributions to national candidates in 2012 went to Republicans. According to the article, 2012 political contributions totaled to $199,100 – an amount that is not enough to pay the salary of a senior executive in many green organizations. See link under Washington’s Control of Energy.

###################################################

ARTICLES:

For the numbered articles below please see this week’s TWTW at: http://www.sepp.org. The articles are at the end of the pdf.

1. How the Great Rare-Earth Metals Crisis Vanished

China’s attempt to control the market for materials essential to the tech industry is turning to dust.

It is difficult for a climate model to be more wrong than when it hind-casts just the opposite of what has been observed to be happening over the past three and a half decades in the real world, which is what most of the CMIP5 models apparently do.

[SEPP Comment: A long post on the effort to obtain original temperature data and compare it with adjusted data. The ocean-air shelter regions may explain why certain areas are warmer today than in the 1930s.]

[SEPP Comment: Two problems with this research: 1) petition principii, assuming that increased atmospheric CO2 will decrease the alkalinity of the ocean and 2) transferring egg masses from one environment to one with a lower pH.]

Link to paper: Dramatic variability of the carbonate system at a temperate coastal ocean site (beaufort, north Carolina, USA) is regulated by physical and biogeochemical processes on multiple timescales.

Post navigation

26 thoughts on “Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup”

How Leftists (Badly) Explain Climate Stability doesn’t explain how Leftists explain anything.
Instead it is about the case for a negative feedback dominating the temperature of the planet (else we would have runaway global warming).

I happen to agree but also note that the article would have been better if it confronted the actual case that is put: Industrial scale release of CO2 is so rapid that the feedback mechanisms are being swamped and (after a lag) the planet will switch to a warmer state.

Sloppy thought and partisan bias may rally the troops but does nothing for the debate.

“Now doubt the climate establishment will ignore the uncertainties and continue to publicly attack those who assert the significant shortcomings. But, the real issue is how much longer will taxpayers tolerate politicians funding this scientific charade? See links under Problems in the Orthodoxy and Seeking a Common Ground.”

yes, indeed…and at an ever more frenzied pace. The latest, from SciAmerican? That pesky 97 percent agreement

so, natch…”This chart should tell us why we need to move the debate beyond the fundamental fact of global warming, from disputing the basic science and effects of the process to disputing the details of consequences and the proposed solutions.”

will someone call me when these bozos start talking about an advanced nuclear Renaissance?

I am saying that that is the claim that is made and the article I referred to studiously avoids confronting that claim. You, yourself, have just made more of an argument against it than the article “How Leftists (Badly) Explain Climate Stability” does.

My complaint was with the article because it doesn’t confront he real claims. Instead itjust applies circular rasonng to say that it ewon’t happen. I agree it probably won’t happen and certainly not fast enough to cause a problem – I am a sceptic.
But, as sceptics, I think we should consider the opposing views instead of close-mindedly turning away from them. And you cant consider alternatove views if you call those who hold such views, silly names.

Um, why is this bog called TWTW now?
__________________
THIS blog is still WUWT, which has a weekly feature: The Week That Was: 2014-01-11 (January 11, 2014) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project
(copied/pasted from top of thread)

dbstealey, twas not you but the article that called believers in catastrophic clmate change silly names. The article calls them “Lefties”.
I am a bit of a “lefty” but find the term disparaging and simplistic so prefer a more helpful tone.

Also, David Cameron (Conservative) has said he suspects that the recent floods in the UK are due to Climate Change – with no evidence. He is not on the Left. So I don’t think that labelling the alarmist contingent with an economic-political flag is in anyway conducive to a constructive debate.

Why ban the sale of cigarettes? The case for abolition
Whole-genome sequencing of giant pandas provides insights into demographic history and local adaptation
Who is moving where? Molecular evidence reveals patterns of range shift in the acorn barnacle Hexechamaesipho pilsbryi in Asia
Warming up a stream reach: design of a hydraulic and heating system
Utilization and performance evaluation of a surplus air heat pump system for greenhouse cooling and heating
USE OF STEEL SLAG TO NEUTRALIZE ACID MINE DRAINAGE (AMD) IN SULFIDIC MATERIAL FROM A URANIUM MINE
Transport Pathways for Light Duty Vehicles: Towards a 2 degrees Scenario
Thermodynamic performance of a hybrid air cycle refrigeration system using a desiccant rotor

Does anybody know why the US Coast Guard is spending so much in preparation for a melting Arctic ice cap?

With today’s administration, the services HAVE to scramble for ANY possible funding. Obama’s administration has only a few buttons they want to use for the military in general (USCG has military and technological roots that the average Obama-appointee positively hates and despises) and so, using any and as many CAGW talking points as possible is the only way to get attention in Washington today.

Does the USCG or USN’s discussion or planning for potential melting Arctic sea ice prove anything about global warming, or about CO2’s theoretical role in global warming?

No.

By the way, at the last three years rate of growth in Antarctic sea ice extents, the Strait of Magellan and Cape Horn will be closed to ship traffic within 8-12 years. But THAT potential problem in sea traffic will NEVER be discussed in any Washington bureaucracy ruled by Obama.

M Courtney says:
January 13, 2014 at 3:36 am
“dbstealey, twas not you but the article that called believers in catastrophic clmate change silly names. The article calls them “Lefties”.
I am a bit of a “lefty” but find the term disparaging and simplistic so prefer a more helpful tone.

Also, David Cameron (Conservative) has said he suspects that the recent floods in the UK are due to Climate Change – with no evidence. He is not on the Left. So I don’t think that labelling the alarmist contingent with an economic-political flag is in anyway conducive to a constructive debate.”

There are many who label themselves “conservative” or “moderate” or, in the US, “republican” that believe in the forced redistribution of wealth, higher taxation and government control. In my lexicon they are “lefties” irrespective of party affiliation or label. Such a label as “lefties” is a clarification of their true stance and not a “silly” name. Judgemental labels like “idiot” are not helpful since we know not if they believe what they preach of have other agendae. Also though it is possible for folks to be lefties on other issues but not so on these AGW related issues, or vice versa, in my experience government control and redistribution usually carry through a person’s political stance and define them quite well from a political point of view.

By the way, at the last three years rate of growth in Antarctic sea ice extents, the Strait of Magellan and Cape Horn will be closed to ship traffic within 8-12 years. But THAT potential problem in sea traffic will NEVER be discussed in any Washington bureaucracy ruled by Obama.
__________________
Panama Canal Expansion underway for a few years, but now in trouble over money:

The project will continue. Are the issues as described in media sources, or have some behind the scenes begun to envision the “ice” issues which you describe and are now “shifting” their involvement? Who will profit? Will the US military be eventually tasked with “protecting” the canal and Panamanian sovereignty, or maybe restoring same? What of the Chinese?
disclaimer: no answers here.

Reply to self — Of course the Coast Guard isn’t making any independent studies on global warming, but you would think they would know whether the ice sheets are melting or expanding or staying the same (note: they never stay the same, they are always in flux) and the USCG is concerned about keeping its mission relevant and keeping the funding going. Once sure way to help get more funding is to align the USCG’s mission with the administration’s goals.

A related question is why is the Navy spending so much on biofuels, but the answer is entirely different. (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2012/07/19/the-navys-use-of-biofuels-is-inefficient-and-costly) The Navy’s purchase of biofuels at $26 a gallon is primarily to prop-up the administration’s green fuel initiatives and has nothing to do with the Navy’s mission or protecting our national security. Don’t we already spend enough money on our military without paying six times the cost of conventional fuels for purely political purposes?

“Make Mine Freedom,” a humorous 9:25-long political cartoon from 1948, depicts a snake oil salesman pushing “ISM.” At the 2:50 mark he says, “Why, it will even make the weather perfect every day.” Here’s the link:

Quoting Curry on the Fundamental Issues of Climate Change is like quoting Homer Simpson on the nutritional benefits of donuts. Specifically, Curry is a politician wearing the clothes of a scientists. Her only goal is to obfuscate the fact that the only “Fundamental” issue that matters is whether or not and to what degree CO2 Forcing is definable, measurable, and testable. The undeniable fact is that CO2 Forcing is not definable, measurable, and testable. Conclusion: AGW isn’t about science. It’s just a way for politician, Like Curry, to secure the paychecks and pensions of herself and her constituents.